INTERVIEW TO MARTIN SCHULZ

By: Salva Díaz y Naxalli Lozano

 We are entering our 5th year of economic crisis and it doesn’t seem to be an effective solution to tackle unemployment. Nevertheless, EU Member States are more concern about public debt, in this regard, is it possible to postpone the maturity term of the internal public debt? What’s your personal opinion towards that, despite the package of reforms made by the Spanish government, the unemployment rate is still that high?

Unemployment is the major issue we face nowadays. I want my Commission Presidency to be judged on the basis of whether we have helped creating jobs. We must fight against unemployment on all fronts.

First, youth unemployment. This risks creating a failed generation, weaker growth and lost competitiveness for Europe. We must strengthen the relation between schools and job creators - which is also one of the goals pursued by the Youth Guarantee package recently approved by the European Parliament. By means of this instrument to tackle youth unemployment all young people should receive a tailored and concrete offer (such as a job, trainership, or continued education) within a few months of them leaving formal education or becoming unemployed. I know that this measure is not still the solution, but it surely indicates the right way to approach the problem, and Member States should implement it as quickly as possible.

Secondly, long-term unemployment. We must restore trust and confidence for our Small and Medium Entreprises. We must loosen the credit crunch that prevents undertakings to hire people. We must increase real investments on people.

Thirdly, to fight the new unemployment, caused by the crisis of the last years, one of our major goals would be to develop a new relationship between the public and private sectors. It is now urgent to invest in formation and requalification, more than simply provide people with economical support - which is of course a necessary measure but not sufficient any more.

As the fight against unemployment is one of our priorities, and the best way is to return back to medium and long term investments, we can say that spending cut policies have failed. The austerity has shown its failure and inadequacy and it can no longer be the mantra of Europe.

Would it be in benefit of the Member States to grant the ECB with more competences and powers in order to let it act as a “real” bank like Federal Reserve in the USA or the UK Central Bank? It seems that the concerns of the ECB in terms of inflation and hyperinflation are an obstacle for efficiency.

I am convinced that we should design a more robust and coherent European banking system. However, even if it could be useful to look at the best practises of other influential banks, the ECB must choose its path in full autonomy. Safeguarding ECB independence is the best answer to both those who consider that ECB is not performing enough and to those who criticise for having gone beyond its powers. We should indeed recognize that the Outright Monetary Transaction plan played a central role in restoring stability in Member States bond market and that ECB has been one of the major players in the fight against crisis. However, even if our central bank is a reliable European institution and its work is solid, I share the concern for deflation and it would be absolutely legitimate for the ECB to act to fulfil its mandate to stay below, but close to, its 2% inflation target.

The Spanish Government approved a package of reforms (or counter reforms) jeopardizing our Welfare State. Many citizen’s rights are at risk: Abortion Law, Health Copayment, Erasmus and scholarships, and the removal of health insurance cards to the Spanish nationals going abroad for more than 3 months. As social democrat, what’s your personal opinion in this regard?

It is important that we do not put all issues in the same basket, but you are right in identifying worrying trends on many social and ethical issues in Spain.

For example, what was the need to change a perfectly sound abortion law which protected the right of women to decide about their future.

I am also worried about the erosion of social and labour rights in Spain and beyond. We have decided that our way towards competitiveness is scaling down on workers' salaries and protections. What we need is to invest more on workers to improve productivity. Governments often talk about flexicurity as the way out of the crisis. In the last five years we have only seen more flexibility demanded from workers, but no increase in security.

Europe has played a part in this. This was the recipe also advocated by Brussels. This will change in May if I am elected President of the European Commission.

We are experiencing a breakthrough of a strong European right, in some cases, it’s extremist wing, can we expect a new empowerment of our social democrat left, mainly at the Parliamentary level, to fight against the dismantling of our Welfare State, and to stand for social policies?

We shouldn't simply expect a new empowerment of the social democrat left; we should fight for such an empowerment!

We shall stay grounded and focus on the common sense of the people, speaking not only to their head but also to their stomach. It is important to recognize also the errors of the left parties, recovering our relation with those persons who declare to be disappointed by the European Union.

The populist rights movements are very good on this, and they seem to be talented also in perceiving the feeling of people. Nevertheless, these movements are a real failure when it comes to solutions and, beside encouraging popular complain, the anti-European movements are not able to offer any reliable alternative to the European project. Also, we must be weary of the rebranding of those extreme movements that remain actually xenophobic and racist. These movements are likely to bring hatred within and outside Europe, but are not all the same and they actually are less similar then they would appear to be. Lega Nord, Front Nationale, PVV, just to name a few are equally toxic, but different one from another. Even if they try to unite with a common purpose before the public opinion, they are really not homogeneous. Their requests are contradictory and they do not have a common vision or political line.

Nonetheless, we must not just show how flimsy their statements are, but we have to convince citizens of the validity of our proposals.

Here the question is always the same: was it the people who left us, or is it our fault to have abandoned our people? The social democrats shall demonstrate that we are not "all the same" in Brussels and that progressives can deliver a very different vision: a Europe that thinks about its citizens before its financial institutions; and a Europe that wants to get its people back to work.

Hence, I think that the best way to assure that the next European Parliament will stand for social policies is to bring people to trust us and believe in the possibility to have another Europe. If the social democrats will have the majority in the Parliament, and a stronger role vis-à-vis the European Commission, then we can reverse the trend and work on a new social Europe.

We have been talking about the need for transparency and democracy within the European institutions. An important step has been taken with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and the influence of the direct vote, at the European Parliament elections, to designate the President of the Commission. The political families are presenting common candidates and programs, in this regard, are we heading to a new era of the integration process? Are we walking to the configuration of the “United States of Europe”? Would it be positive for the European project to have just one direct elected President of the European Union, instead of three?

Actually, the coming European elections will be different from the previous ones and I think this can be considered as a great achievement for the European integration process. For the first time ever, we have a unique leading candidate for each of the major European political parties and we'll have a truly European electoral campaign.

Even if a more integrated Union does not necessarily mean a project to create the United States of Europe, it surely means to deal with an Europeanization of the political debate. The Lisbon treaty asked us for more democracy and participation, and this is why I think we all are going in the correct direction, breaking the ranks and deciding to exploit all the possibilities offered by the new treaties. To stand as a candidate for the European Commission is in line with the Lisbon expectations and represents a huge step towards a more political Europe.

Nevertheless, although the great value to build an even more easily understandable European institutional structure, I have some misgivings on the direct election of one, unique, President of the Union. The EU is an inclusive project and I believe that also its leadership should reflect the political balance of the European scenario and respect its pluralism. A democratic and ambitious project, indeed, I think should escape the hard logic of "winner takes all".

Our European Union has been built upon the pillars of dialogue, cooperation and solidarity among nations. We have achieved the right of free movement for our citizens, despite the last controversies about Rumanian and Bulgarian citizens. But solidarity and cooperation are global values and not just a matter of European constituency. In this regard, do you think that common European rights regarding asylum should be implemented? Which are the next steps to be taken to revitalized our common external relations, mainly our European Neighborhood Policy, in the framework of the Mediterranean Union or the Eastern Partnership?

First of all, if I were elected I'll do my best to ensure the free movement of people, which is one of the greatest European achievements. Moreover, reflecting on the fact that countries that are less favourable to the free movement of persons are also those most favourable to the free movement of capitals, any regression in the field of free movement rights is clearly unacceptable for any socialist and progressive politician.

Then, talking about asylum, I think we must draw to an even more homogeneous European legislation. As I also recently declared during an interview at the radio station Cadena SER, I am firmly convinced that the question of migration should be dealt at a European level. Lampedusa, Ceuta, Melilla are first of all the frontiers of the Union, not only the boundaries of a nation.

For this reason we should push towards an effective solidarity among the Member States, establishing a new legislation to offer a legal way to enter Europe together with a mechanism of quotas to avoid the current dramatic situation of some frontier countries. 10,000 people on a small island like Lampedusa are an invasion; spread throughout the EU territory they are not so many and could also be a resource.

The recovery of a EU role as a global actor, even with reference to our external dimension and European Neighbourhood Policy, comes to a way back to the European ideals. The Ukraine situation seems to be a perfect example of the metaphor I used in my book. It is to say a European Union that looks like a giant from the outside, but it gets smaller and smaller as you approach it. The Ukrainians who have sacrificed themselves for what Europe represents could then collide with the reality of a too bureaucratic Europe that lost its ideal strain and, also to revitalize our common external relations Europe, and the Member states, should first regain the essence of their shared values.

In 2009 European Elections, we faced a high percentage of abstentionism, our goal is to increase turnout and mobilize abstentionists by reach out directly to citizens and explain the importance of Europe. Nevertheless, the economic crisis might play against us. In this scenario, if our party could not achieve a parliamentary majority and the need of a coalition would be imminent, in which direction should we, social democrats, look at?

We shall make any effort to succeed the coming elections with a wide majority in the European Parliament. I am confident that the socialist democrats will be able to go back to really talk to people and not to let crisis play against us. Indeed, even if we all should admit some left parties' faults, the last years of profound crisis have been also the proofs of the failure of austerity sought by the centre-right.

This crisis has emphasised the limits of a politics only attentive to budgetary rigor and not to social issues. Here we can find our role: in explaining to people that another Europe is possible, and in bringing people back to vote for the European elections looking for a project of a more equitable Europe. It is no more a simple "yes or no" to Europe.

We are now asked to decide what kind of Europe we want for the next 5 years. And we have to make voters aware that we can bring Europe back to focus on its citizens more than on its banks.

Also, we can maybe say that the Eurosceptic debate has lighted up the political discussion and brought attention to the European dimension. Where does their support come from? It comes from frustration about the direction Europe is taking, and a belief that there is no alternative other than extremism. We won’t ignore the frustration they represent, but our task will be to address the source of that frustration, not to conform to it.

Our target as progressives is to show that we have a strong alternative vision. A vision which does not look at scapegoats, but at solutions. What we must do is to convey the popular discontent into a European vision that wants to change this Europe, bringing Europeans to vote and not to give up. Then, the coming European elections will be a fundamental test to avoid the abstaining we had in the previous elections, explaining to people that the European elections are not some second level national elections but the way to decide on the European ruling class.